How to Protect Smart People From Dumb Decisions

Chances are you think you’re above average in intelligence. Most of us do. Even though it’s impossible for MOST OF US to be above average at anything.

Two extremes:

Two extremes plague ineffective teams. Either the group nods their heads in agreement with the person at the head of the table (groupthink) or a dominant critic ends the conversation.

Both extremes result in tail-chasing, ineffective decision-making, squandered resources, and lost opportunities. But at the same time …

Ineffective teams pat themselves on the back for doing good work. Powerful people tend to be unaware of their own incompetence. After all, you make decisions because you think they’re right, not because you think they’re stupid.

Confidence:

Confidence goes up with stupidity. You can be completely confident of a stupid decision.

When Kennedy ordered a covert action to unseat Castro, he believed it would succeed. Today, when you say Bay of Pigs, you think dumb decision.

Confidence in a decision doesn’t indicate the rightness of a decision.

Kennedy was smart enough to review and adapt the White House’s decision-making process. Morten Hansen describes the results in his book, Collaboration.

4 ways to encourage constructive dissent:

Each participant should function as a “skeptical generalist”. Look at the problem as a whole, not from their individual department’s standpoint.

Meet in an informal setting. Avoid formal agendas and protocol.

Divide the team into sub-groups that work on alternatives and then reconvene.

Meet, occasionally, without the leader present.

5 tips for good team decisions:

The person at the head of the table asks questions and talks less than the group.

Get heads turning toward each other, not the head of the table. Create conversation.

10 thoughts on “How to Protect Smart People From Dumb Decisions”

The Institute of Nuclear Power used the concept of Devil’s Advocate in their group decision-making trainings, that a team should have a rotation assignment for one person to have the role of making the negative, opposite viewpoint of the group. I guess it could be a fun role if people do not put a Blame Frame or “PITA” label on it, but that negative view is often very beneficial when expressed, and a nuclear plant is a good place for a bit of added safety in the overall decision-making.

Note that some people LOVE to take that role, as a preferred style. The good news is that those are not that common, but my old grad student buddy Bob just loved to announce that he was taking the Devil’s Advocate role in so many of our classes, just to have something to argue about.

Dan
Your thought to have meetings without the Boss has worked for me a lot over the years. As the head financial person on the team I would often get the other functional people together to come up with a solution to present to our President/CEO. For this to work you need a confident Leader and a trusted other team person( doesn’t have to be the CFO) to moderate the discussion. When there were issues between two separate business groups we would often get the needed people together without the egos or title of the Presidents present and have equal success.
Brad

From my experience, arrogant leaders stifle input (whether directly or indirectly). This can cause the team to become a bunch of yes-men. I thought it was so powerful that you said the one at the head of the table should ask more questions and talk less than everyone else. Boom!